i design you will state of the nation address president putin reveals that russia has successfully tested the new nuclear powered on the water drone. video of that test. will our u.s. partners have to be honest and straightforward with russia does not pose a threat to anyone and the actions we take are retaliate sheree that is to say in defense. and also stresses that russia doesn't pose a threat but can defend itself if necessary also reiterated that washington must be honest with moscow and not use trumped up. also this hour a former acting director of the f.b.i. who claim to have lied under oath in the past is used in the media as

a credible source alleging a slew of incendiary claims donald trump. the president said he did not believe that the north koreans had the capability to hit us here with ballistic missiles and united states to which the president replied i don't care i believe putin. thanks for joining us live and. welcome to the program. the russian defense ministry has unveiled new footage of a successfully tested underwater drone proceed in the video all those tests on the new weapon system news they've been successfully successful came immediately off the vladimir putin gave his annual state of the nation address the president said in his speech to the drone is expected to be. in full operation by this spring.

the president stated the brand new proceed in naval system was designed if necessary to counter u.s. naval forces and washington's efforts in creating a global a global missile defense program really at sea it's thought that the russian systems unmanned underwater vehicles are small and difficult to locate and intercept rather proves it also provided an update on a new hypersonic missile known as zouk on which he says is a work in progress is what the russian leader had to say about those weapons early . we conducted successful drills of a nuclear powered cruise missile with unlimited range put it best nick and also poseidon an underwater pilotless device with unlimited range we didn't say before but i can now announce that this spring we will launch the systems first nuclear submarine. that we're going to do today i can also provide official information and

more perspective on the hypersonic missiles the speed of which is nine max with a range of over a thousand kilometers able to hit both maritime and ground targets in this regard i want to emphasize that for the protection of russian national interests the russian navy will be given seven new multi targets submarines in the nearest time possible five ships will be engineered and another sixteen ships of that category will be deployed by twenty twenty seventy. or the remarks came during the president signing of the state of the nation address putin largely focused on domestic challenges on the country's economic development but he brought up foreign policy concerns as well he said that moscow does not seek confrontation with its international partners artie's into trunk oh has this summary. i'll start with how the russian president got to the final part of his speech where he did on america and its

allies plus how russia gets along with them he said that he was obliged to bring this issue up after washington tore up the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty the donald trump administration insisted on that after the idea first surfaced in washington last year mr putin called on the american leadership to be honest about the actual reasons why they were leaving the treaty and the russian president believes that these reasons are russia and. being obliged to limit their missile arsenals while other countries not being put in that position here's what else we heard from mr putin on that. well our u.s. partners had to be honest and straightforward with us they should not have used trumped up accusations and allegations to unilaterally withdraw from it like they did in two thousand and two which they did in an honest way when they pulled out of

the i.b.m. treaty i felt it was done the wrong way but at least they did it in a straightforward manner but how do they act in fact they violate everything and find excuses to put the blame on someone moreover they mobilize their allies who are going along with them so while addressing the lawmakers in some way mr putin's address the american leadership as well and the gist was russia is not a threat for america and its allies but it could become one if these countries start being aggressive against moscow but i see which is the need. russia wants to have a proper friendly and equal relationship with the us russia does not pose a threat to anyone or any actions we take or retaliate that is to say in defense we never seek confrontation we do not want to especially with a global power like the us and this was the point when the russian president may

even have sounded aggressive definitely serious the russian president began to talk what his country would be forced to do an r. and d. and actual military deployment if the western military expansion continues but. russia will be forced to produce weapons that can be used not only against those territories with direct threats originate from but also against the places where the decision makers are located we should let the u.s. take into account the range and. read of our prospective weapons and then they can make a decision that might create an additional threat to our country however we kept hearing it time and again that the bear all the rewards when someone attacks it anything that russia would choose to do will all the be in response to hostile actions and the russian president still believes that the way to sort out all the

global issues the best way to do that is to make steps towards each other positive steps. the nato responded to president putin's remarks finding them unacceptable threats the military bloc also said that it will take all the information in the address into consideration we spoke about the recent developments with the former german intelligence officer and an m.p. from germany's the link party. i would say that the. what i observed from the nato side and in the last year is that they want to have a pretext for their own politics for their own. or i'm sorries for their own. programs i can see mainly that. whether russia is doing as is mainly a reaction to to the nato expansion to the leaving off the i.n.f. treaty it's very clear that the united states has never given up the idea of

actually nuclear dominance basically ability to use cursed strikes nuclear capitation and. by having this capability they're not necessarily going to tool does not immediately imply that they would like to show but. maybe just a tremendous kind of bargaining chip in all negotiations eventual outcome will be that you have to do you have americans have to come back to the negotiating table and to to reintroduce some kind of element. of. balanced should teach a course as it was what i wish before we discussed the state of the nation speech earlier with host of artie's worlds apart acts on a boycott she says the west is missing the point of the speech. remember that

famous phrase by john f. kennedy ask no it was the country can do for you but rather what you can do for the country while this was a total opposite it was all about what the country can do for you and it was about how the country can support the families how the country can support the education how the country can support the industry how the country can support the innovation and i think the russians are really concerned about building themselves from the bottom up sure there are sanctions foreign policy has still it but russians believe that they first and foremost have to address their own chronic problems and that's why he only spoke about foreign policy and weapons in the last half of the address he dedicated the first full hour to russia's domestic issues not only about political promises i think he really takes them seriously and after the president's speech we caught up with russia's economics minister to some of the key social

targets the government is aiming for. you look at the national goals that we share for the two of the goals which we are on the performing as of now it's the increase in the population. growth of the population rate in russia and the degrees in the poverty rate so all those measures that were announced they are targeting families with children and this is the largest part of the year of families that are under the poverty level and of course this all said raising the desire to increase the birth rates in russia is the president highlight that we need to hear in to fix disability out of all the services of health care of education at any. city at any religious liberty here from across the country and the fact that we're here for as of now that you know some of the small towns the quality of the services are much lower than in the largest c.d.'s this is the attempt so there is that issue with investing in infrastructure in those particular places you look at the past several years you will find out that so in terms of fiscal policy in

russia was one of the. more prudent countries across the globe which means that all the decisions that are taking will you know counter that it's clear understanding the government and the president himself looking deeper into the statistics deep in the into the data to understand which. particular family switch but you kill or persons are in there you know by getting the heart situation in order and to address the urgent needs of the people in the me and the of the social sphere. a former acting director of the f.b.i. andrew mccabe has provoked a farce thought of controversy by claiming both in the new book and to the media that the us president is in the kremlin's pocket. do you still believe the president could be a russian our so. i think it's possible i think that's why we started our investigation i think the president is

a threat is that what that means i think it's entirely possible i think that's one of the reasons why we opened the case against him we had good reason to consider that the president might be a threat to national security did you suspect the president might actually be working for russia he thought that might be possible of the u.s. justice department fired just the last year before he was set to retire saying he'd lied multiple times under oath about comments he made to the media he claims though that the decision was politically motivated our senior correspondent laura guys the if takes up the story. sensation selves it's the fact of life the bigger the dirtier the ruling shia your story the more people listen this book is dirty but we'll get to that first his revelations who could have believed that senior u.s. officials discussed seriously talked about declaring trump mentally or

physically unfit to be president meaning he could be constitutionally removed from office discussion of the twenty fifth amendment was was simply rod raise the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort and attempted coup some call this in the united states of all places insanity and was this an attempted bureaucratic i don't know this was a coup attempt there's no doubt about it but hey one man's coup is another's revolution and would you believe there's worse stuff in this book allegedly trump trusts putin more than his own intelligence agencies unbelievable the president said he did not believe that north koreans have the capability to hit us

here with ballistic missiles and united states intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses to which the president replied i don't care i believe putin it's almost too crazy to be true come to think of it that is a pretty outlandish claim but hey folks buying it because you know one of the things that impressed me about mccabe in the interview was how careful he was about what he knew what he didn't know and what he had overheard he. it was very almost as if he was justifying a trial did seem like mccain was being credible and it's a pretty incredible allegation that he's making about trump or would trust putin's view on this over the us intelligence agencies well some people will believe anything especially if it tarnishes trump the more sensible bull look at the author

andrew mccabe who may not be the most honest person in the world at all according to the justice department inspector general report was the sensation here when he was the f.b.i. as deputy director leaked sensitive information to the press and then lied about it four times three of those under oath mccabe is rightly perceived already as a lying before with a major set of conflicts of interest mccabe is i think he's under criminal investigation already he's trying to sell this book now so the guy might be a liar ok it's given the benefit of the doubt trump trusting putin more than his intelligence guys which is strange because trump threatened north korea with biblical vengeance meaning he must have taken the threat seriously they will be

met with fire fury more than that in two thousand and seventeen russia joined in on sanctions against north korea meaning moscow to saw a threat the facts fly in the face of sensation mr mccabe it seems is back to old habits theory a lie to spice things up get the book selling and then the timing the timing just as trump and kim jong un prepare for another summit. in other headlines a landmark statue commemorating the end of wall war two seems the fall of the fall of the mitsu movement based on a photograph taken in nine hundred forty five showing a soldier kissing a stranger on the day japan capitulated to the united states monday the sculpture in sarasota florida titled unconditional surrender was spray painted with the me to

hash tag this up and the day after the man depicted in the work of war veteran george madonna died at the age of ninety five for decades the image was considered a symbol of the euphoria that gripped the nation after the end of the war in recent years though some have suggested that by grabbing a stranger on times square and kissing her without consent. was committing sexual assault or to discuss this story we can now bring in women's rights advocates recent national more expert jennifer breeden thanks for joining us good to have you both on today research we could start with you perhaps just looking into what it what exactly happened here police are saying there's no security cameras there's no witnesses that they've managed to find in there or sort of actually know who did this i mean does this look like a real serious sort of act of protest a meaningful message could this just be a prank or indeed a provocations actually sets up the me too movement. well i think it should be

absolutely taken seriously if you think back to our country were founded on the principle of in order to create a more perfect union we hold these truths to be self evident we the people are seeking to create a more perfect union and anytime we learn that something does not reflect that perfect union that we're trying to create we as the people have the right to flag something and say wait a minute this does not reflect the more perfect union that we're going for and what happened here is that no one flag literally flag with ready. a spray paint. item that did not properly reflect the type of country that we want to live in a country where women are not sexually assaulted and i think it's a very valuable stance and it's a stance that you know the need to movement is here to say that women should not be sexually assaulted and i think that's a valid stance. i mean regardless of the motives behind this i mean because things

that she has been criticized in the postes need to activists as well. do you think though in some ways this on the message the movement is trying to send black commits an act of vandalism police are saying it's going to cost around a thousand dollars to repair this it is a criminal act regardless of the message will listen some way damaged the movement more than it will benefit. i think so because it's an important movement it's an important voice to say that sexual assault against women is wrong and to look at a statue like this i mean i'm thinking of women that i've known of stories that i've heard of women that have been sexually assaulted in certain things i'm just not seen that in this statue i don't know this young woman i don't know this nurse we don't know the back story the statute doesn't have a back story stating that this woman was just walking by and the statue was made because the man just kissed her without her consent and that she tried to say no or

that she did not consent to it we don't have any of the back story of this statue it's a statue that's erected that stand stood for many years and that being said what what happens in a great movement to the limit and to stop sexual assaults against women criminal sexual sot is now concerning its efforts to to vandalism to things like that which is just going to weaken that because this is somebody that the man just died at ninety six years old this is something that has never been brought up it's never been raised not that i've heard of until now he's now passed away and suddenly it's vandalized which is lessening in the voice of that there are women really out there that are under threat of sexual assault or threat of rape. sexual trafficking here and we're going back to something from sixty years prior to say that that's ok there are a lot of things when that when that allegedly happened if that happened at the end of world war two when this when this man when this kiss occurred that the statue was made on. they're saying right now that that that's that's not ok we have to

show that that's not acceptable well there are a lot of things in one nine hundred forty five when world war two ended there are no longer legal today there are no longer acceptable and that's by general standards outside of me to lots of women's rights lots of civil rights legislation that was passed down years after world war two ended so to make such a such a high raising issue about something that happened years before even the civil rights act was passed the united states i think is going back in history to a time that is not as important as what is happening now i mean just just to give a bit of background i'm just reading the transcript of an interview with some of friedman who was the you pictured in the photograph she said in later interviews that the act was a little conceptual decided to just grab and kiss or as she said but she also said she considers it jubilant it was you know the end of the war people were celebrating you know perhaps the emotions that. we thankfully will never get to grasp you know the end of such a terrible period in human history so it means

a lot of people really have the right to judge what was appropriate and what was wrong given the particular circumstances their response if you can go in for them. you know i think that's a very important question and before we address that the the point was is that you know a cell a well behaved person seldom makes history or the greasy wheel or the squeaky wheel gets the oil so what we have is someone drawing attention to this and saying you know i don't think this is right and they're looking at it through the lens of twenty nineteen and that's what a lot of you know the me too movement is looking through history and reflecting it through a lens of what we consider to be acceptable right now in certain situations such as the molestation of a child it should never be acceptable it should never be ok to molest a child however if you look back at one nine hundred sixty and say well after the war people were very jubilant and you know this kiss even though it wasn't consensual was still something that you know she got swept away and then maybe for

the person that it actually happened to we should not rewrite history however in those moments where history does not reflect who we say we are as a people such as the confederate flag or the confederate statues that are being taken down by protesters because that's not the type of america we want to reflect in those moments it's ok for us to look at history and say this is not who we choose to be and so maybe this is not the best example for the me too movement to use because you have to look at the facts you've got to know the history and that's important we can't just say in a vacuum everything is unacceptable by our standards we actually have to as you said look at that history and she said for herself that well maybe it was just a moment that i got swept into but going forward we do not consent to women being kissed being groped being touched being inappropriately or any way that they don't seem you know acceptable without their consent and so we're moving into

a new phase where we require as a people consent for things like kissing and touching and so it's really a matter of us taking this lesson and. forward you of course and the support of what you said i'm sure we can all agree with it. is that we are talking about i mean jennifer toms obviously do change and have changed for the better in many things. views on a number of subject historical issues as well but as to retrospectively judged topics that we don't agree with now based in the group through the lens of history which we simply don't fit in with now i'm always to jump in as well when you want. yes so i think you know i agree i agree of the many of the points that reese was making and it is true i mean we live in a different time i mean we live in one of the most divisive times in american

history despite some of the things that have happened in our past and that's the problem you know i think that when we continue to dig deep there and go back into history you know like i said even if we have statements from the woman that was in the picture we don't have a lot of the intent we don't have when we don't have the context of the time that it had occurred in and so that's that's the point is that we're taking this we're looking at this from a lens of a perspective that we just don't understand it because we live now in such a divisive time i mean there are times even in the one nine hundred sixty s. if you look at martin luther king jr and some of these civil rights protests even the protests for women i mean never never what would vandalism have been ok especially for dr king to do something like that to commit a criminal act in furtherance his criminal acts were peaceful they were meant to vandalize to to harm they were meant to prove a point to and hance civil rights and not to really detract from that but i do think it is important that we look at the times now and let's not why not why i was

shocked to find out what is not in that let's not do that. let's not whitewash dr king let's not say well they're not white or don't dr anything it's ringing up a fad water out of of nonviolence it's very in. in that we realize that when you have to stand up and disobey and something that's sometimes an up people sometimes violence sometimes things that we don't like will be required and so it's ok for the me to move in for young women or for the. movement about you know black lives matter if they have to cause an upheaval to get attention to this issue then it's absolutely necessary and so we don't want to make sure that everyone's placated and comfortable with what we're doing and that it's also politically correct because change see nothing without a demand and we have to speak truth to power and so in those instances if there has to be some discomfort momentarily so that justice can be carried out then by all

means that's what must be done. well and it's true that discomfort is going to happen what i bring up with dr king is that it was very clear especially in his letter to him in birmingham from a birmingham jail that he talked about his his purpose being to change the laws to change the laws for the better for just laws and because the laws were unjust we have laws in america today that protect against sexual assault that protect against unwanted advances advances that are not consented to so we have laws today for that even if we didn't back in one thousand nine hundred five and so that's that's kind of the confusion and the inability to understand or to comprehend where there is vandalism that occurs and where some of these things happen we're trying to change behaviors yes you're trying to change behaviors in the me to move in but what are the laws and so it's a little bit different and so i do think it's relevant to bring this up in that context when civil disobedience goes against the law because it's an unjust law there is no law here that is unjust it's the behavior of men that we're seeing in society and in this instance it was men from sixty years ago. reeses been about

a year or so into thin to your point you're going much. to your point just like with the confederate monument any time in history that we're celebrating something that that does not speak to who we are right now or who we want to be it's ok for us to say this does not represent who we choose to be and we're going to take this down just like with the monument of robert e. lee in many of the people who are the confederate soldiers in general back during the time of the civil rights wars the civil war we do not choose to celebrate those and if this particular monument statue was of a man who was drunk coming home from war and grabbing a woman and putting his lips on her that he did not know whether she was swept up in the moment or not we do not see this as a fitting activity to celebrate why because right now in this moment we're having an awakening where we are championing championing the right of women for

self-determination and to define what's acceptable for their body and because we value that more than anything else right now then we say that this statue should not stand and i absolutely support the need to movement in saying this statue does not have right to stand because we have a big knowledge from the woman and i believe there's actually an acknowledgement from the man as well that he was drunk and didn't know her and so if that's the case then anything that does not reflect who we are trying to become as a country as a people it can't stand i can't jennifer vulcan but it is true that it's true that we should absolutely respect the self-determination of women but we also have to as women were allowed to make our own points for ourselves we're allowed to make our own stance the woman in this picture herself said that she was caught up in the moment even if you didn't know that at the time even if that wasn't the intent at the time again we're focusing on something in the past and because we've taken it outside of historical context we're missing the general point we're missing the purpose we're missing the call to individualize. women to become

independent in their rights of what they want because right now we don't really know we don't know what's going to make us one of the lackeys or one of the people that one of the women that's failing in this movement because we haven't said ok one i consent to whatever you're doing and this is ok and i feel ok can we sign this contract now at what point what point are we taking too many steps and making it seem like women are too weak and need a contract need three times verbal communication or three times verbal consent for things to be ok and women can't just say no that's not ok this is ok and that's not and in this case that did not happen so it's some point we're just going around in circles and making it seem almost like women are too weak and we need to keep fighting and so that there needs to be so much over verbal consent that that really lessens the point that women can say you know stuff this is self-defense and at that point we're just we're going around in circles here we.